Both Java and C unit tests coming with 3.5.2-alpha passed for me in 5 runs. Are the failed tests deterministically reproducible? If not, it seems we have more flaky tests related to threading / timing that needs to be taken care of, and they don't sound blocker for the release to me.
On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm suggesting as a blocker for 3.5.3, I think we should proceed with > 3.5.2 as is and give some love to the C client in the next release. > > Since the current release is alpha I also feel its OK to go ahead with RC1 > and address the C client issue in 3.5.3. That way we'll get more folks > trying it out and stabilize 3.5 version eventually. Probably will listen to > others opinion as well. > > -Rakesh > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 03 Jul 2016, at 17:53, Chris Nauroth <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > For my part, I got a successful full test run from RC1 before starting > > the > > > [VOTE]. The problem with the silent failure of multi tests could have > > > snuck past me easily though. (Flavio, thank you for filing > > > ZOOKEEPER-2463.) I'm curious to hear test results from others who are > > > trying RC1. > > > > The test failures seem to be related to test timing, not bugs, but I > > haven't been able to confirm for the last two I mentioned. Granted that > > timing is in some sense a bug, all I'm saying is that it doesn't seem to > > indicate a regression or anything. > > > > > > > > It looks like we also need an issue to track updating the copyright > > notice > > > in the docs. I don't believe this is an ASF compliance problem in the > > > same way that an erroneous NOTICE file would be, so I propose that we > > > address it in 3.5.3. > > > > Agreed, we need an issue for that. > > > > > > > > Flavio, you suggested filing a blocker for the ZooKeeperQuorumServer.cc > > > failure. Did you want that targeted to 3.5.2 or 3.5.3? > > > > > > > I'm suggesting as a blocker for 3.5.3, I think we should proceed with > > 3.5.2 as is and give some love to the C client in the next release. > > > > > Overall, how are people feeling about the RC1 [VOTE] at this point? Is > > > anyone considering a -1, or shall we proceed (keeping in mind it's an > > > alpha) with the intent of fixing things in a more rapid 3.5.3 release > > > cycle? > > > > I'd say we proceed. > > > > -Flavio > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/3/16, 8:43 AM, "Flavio Junqueira" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> The issue with the TestReconfigServer test is that the client port is > > >> still used and we get a bind exception, which prevents the server from > > >> starting. To verify this locally, I simply added some code to retry > and > > >> it works fine with that fix. Going forward we need a better fox. > > >> > > >> I haven't able to figure out yet the issue with the > > >> Zookeeper_simpleSystem tests. > > >> > > >> I have also found something strange with the multi tests. I have > created > > >> ZK-2463 for this problem and made it a blocker for 3.5.3. > > >> > > >> -Flavio > > >> > > >>> On 03 Jul 2016, at 15:25, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> I have spun a new ubuntu VM to check the C failures. I get three > > >>> failures with the new installation: > > >>> > > >>> Zookeeper_simpleSystem::testFirstServerDown : assertion : elapsed > 10911 > > >>> tests/TestClient.cc:411: Assertion: equality assertion failed > > >>> [Expected: -101, Actual : -4] > > >>> tests/TestClient.cc:322: Assertion: assertion failed [Expression: > > >>> ctx.waitForConnected(zk)] > > >>> Failures !!! > > >>> Run: 43 Failure total: 2 Failures: 2 Errors: 0 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> TestReconfigServer::testRemoveFollower/usr/bin/java > > >>> ZooKeeper JMX enabled by default > > >>> Using config: ./../../build/test/test-cppunit/conf/0.conf > > >>> Starting zookeeper ... FAILED TO START > > >>> zktest-mt: tests/ZooKeeperQuorumServer.cc:61: void > > >>> ZooKeeperQuorumServer::start(): Assertion `system(command.c_str()) == > > 0' > > >>> failed. > > >>> /bin/bash: line 5: 47059 Aborted (core dumped) > > >>> ZKROOT=./../.. CLASSPATH=$CLASSPATH:$CLOVER_HOME/lib/clover.jar > > >>> ${dir}$tst > > >>> > > >>> -Flavio > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> On 03 Jul 2016, at 15:19, Edward Ribeiro <[email protected]> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Hi Flavio, > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected] > > >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >>>> Hey Eddie, > > >>>> > > >>>> A few comments on your points: > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> - the copyright notice is still dating "2008-2013". It's worth > > >>>>> updating to > > >>>>> the current year? > > >>>> > > >>>> Where are you seeing this? The NOTICE file is correct from what I > can > > >>>> see. > > >>>> > > >>>> Ops, sorry. I was referring to the PDFs and HTMLs in the docs/ > > >>>> folder. Even after running "ant docs" the footnote has "2008-2013" > > >>>> copyright. Images attached. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> - I consistently ran on an test error equals to the one at > > >>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2982/console > > >>>>> <https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2982/console> > > >>>>> <https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2982/console > > >>>>> <https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2982/console>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I think this is ZK-2152, which Chris has moved to 3.5.3, so even > > >>>> though it isn't ideal. it is expected. > > >>>> > > >>>> Got it. :) > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> - Also this one: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/zookeeper-dev/201601.mbox/%3C > > >>>>> 1279938263.1283.1453526737790.JavaMail.jenkins@crius%3E > > >>>>> < > > https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/zookeeper-dev/201601.mbox/%3 > > >>>>> C1279938263.1283.1453526737790.JavaMail.jenkins@crius%3E> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I don't know if there is a jira for this one. If not, better create > > >>>> one and make it a blocker. > > >>>> > > >>>> Okay, gonna look for and do this. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> - In fact, there were 14 failing tests total (I suspect all of them > > >>>>> related > > >>>>> to the C tests). Any ideas? A couple of flacky tests? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> In general, having a release with so many tests failing is bad. I > > >>>> didn't get these test failures, so it would be great to report them > or > > >>>> make sure that there are jiras for it. > > >>>> > > >>>> Right. I was only skeptical of my own tests because I ran the unit > > >>>> tests on a relatively old Ubuntu version, even though it was Java > 1.7. > > >>>> So, I am running the tests on a newer Linux soon just to make sure > it > > >>>> was not a false negative. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Test failures are possibly an indication that something is bad with > > >>>> the RC, so I wouldn't have +1 it if I had observed all those. It > might > > >>>> be ok given that this is still labeled alpha. > > >>>> > > >>>> Excuse me. I only +1'ed because I suspect the errors are restricted > > >>>> to the C binding and my Ubuntu version, etc. But I should have > > >>>> researched further before giving +1, nevertheless. Point taken. :) > > >>>> > > >>>> Edward > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- Cheers Michael.
